But the Nazis were only small potatoes – they merely murdered millions. But right now, today, we are witnessing the murder-in-slow-motion of at least a billion people. A crime perpetrated primarily through the use of a concerted propaganda campaign. Can anyone explain to me how it was proper to prosecute Goebbels, yet the Koch brothers and the former head of Exxon Mobil should not be similarly prosecuted?

And yes, I believe Anthony Watts should be frogmarched to The Hague as well. No question, in my mind. In fact, I find the idea of a defense of his actions ethically reprehensible.

That comment was written by “gingerbaker” who just happens to be easy to find, since the link in his comment to his photo website and photo store is public information.

So, Bill Forsyth who I believe is “Ginger Baker”, you are welcome to tell me to my face right here, that exercising my constitutional free speech right to an opinion on climate is worthy of a war crimes style trial.

UPDATE2: Since the academic host of “and then theres hatespeech physics” decided that he’d better disappear the comment, once word got out he was being criticized for it, I offer this helpful screencap:

UPDATE3: Brandon Schollenberger looks at the larger universe of stupid surrounding that comment and the website, saying Stupidity is the real offense.

248 thoughts on “Quote of the Week – get your war crimes trial tickets now!”

Anthony,
I sincerely recommend you read this week’s editorial by L. Neil Smith on the ncc-1776 dot org website titled “The New Inquisition”. There are a number threads, climate, mental health, and guns that all face the prospect of having a new inquisition by those foul statists who want full control of our lives.

“But the Nazis were only small potatoes – they merely murdered millions. But right now, today, we are witnessing the murder-in-slow-motion of at least a billion people. A crime perpetrated primarily through the use of a concerted propaganda campaign. Can anyone explain to me how it was proper to prosecute Goebbels, yet the Koch brothers and the former head of Exxon Mobil should not be similarly prosecuted?”

This reasoning is tortured – seriously tortured. The obvious response is that no crime has been committed. Apparently, the writer believes that crimes that exist only in his imagination deserve the same punishment as actual crimes.

Megadroughts have historically led to the mass migration of humans away from drought affected lands, resulting in a significant population decline from pre-drought levels. They are suspected of playing a primary role in the collapse of several pre-industrial civilizations, including the Anasazi of the North American Southwest,[2] the Khmer Empire of Cambodia,[3] the Mayan of Mesoamerica,[4] the Tiwanaku of Bolivia,[5] and the Yuan Dynasty of China.[6] As such they constitute one of the greatest threats to human civilization. The African Sahel region in particular has suffered multiple megadroughts throughout history, with the most recent lasting from approximately 1400 AD to 1750 AD.[7] North America experienced at least four megadroughts during the Medieval Warm Period.﻿

“Ginger Baker” was your screen name? Really? Way to stay “hip” and “with it”, man. Yeah, you’re totally counter-culture and out there. Not a burnt-out, vacuous film of hippie scum at all.

I must say, though, that these Koch brothers really freak these trippy love-children out. I hadn’t heard about them until a couple years ago, but now I’m tempted to throw them a donation just so they don’t stop fighting against the Stasi-esque harbingers of “peace”.

As someone has already said Goebbels was never prosecuted. He arranged for his 6 children to be given lethal injections while he and his life killed themselves. Futhermore, the Nazi’s were responsible for the deaths of millions but rather tens of millions!

It seems that some alarmist kooks love the butchering of billions. They just do not like what they perceive to be the choice of the slaughtered. As long as they can pick them, they are fine with killing people.

One thing that made some people turn away from the climate alarmist crowd was that there were too many articles that in essence said “All of this personal liberty, democracy, and free enterprize were great fun, but now that we have a global crisis on our hands that sort of luxury will have to be curtailed.” And other alarmists who might have disagreed with these opinions did little to denounce them.

There is, in other words, a subtle but distinct totalitarian undercurrent.

Well lets include all those who are/were in favor of using food for auto fuel. How many thousands/millions have starved from the increase in food prices.

Then lets include all those opposed to The keystone pipe line and drilling on federal lands. Thereby increasing the price of fuel for everyone on earth along with increasing environmental damage by the drilling in less environmentally safe countries.

Then there are all the kooks who are climate warmest who have turned a naturally occurring plant food into a pollutant. You know the people who want to stop CO2 in our atmosphere, that has by itself increased the food supply 11%. Atmospheric CO2 that is at near long term lows and if it falls much lower will kill off all plant life.

Frog marched? How? Anthony isn’t French is he? The origin of the term frog-march apparently has nothing to do with nationality though, as the article at this link explains: http://www.word-detective.com/111703.html. You will need to search for “frog” to get to the correct post.

Frog march: To carry a person face-down with one person holding each limb. To forcibly relocate a person, especially in a degrading or humiliating manner. (Wiktionary)

We all make fun at such comments as these made by “gingerbaker,” but it’s truly scary. These are the very attitudes that allowed men to physically and “legally” put human beings into gas chambers, then burn those human carcasses in massive furnaces. It has always been grandiose ideals, like these that are now being expressed, that has led to mass machine gun deaths, mass burials, mass graves, genocide. It isn’t funny. It isn’t humorous. It is history before our eyes. And the very ones making these comments call men like Anthony Watts ‘Nazis’? Where is the anti-defamation league now? This is becoming an intolerable work of the worst kind of hate speech. I fear where it will lead.

This isn’t funny any more. To those who would be tyrants who deny freedom of expression to others (like Torcello and “gingerbaker,” an obvious coward who won’t even sign his real name to his odious nonsense), I offer the words of a great American patriot: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

It’s worth noting that the world’s biggest mast killers always claimed to be acting in ‘the interest of the people ‘ never did they say they hate them and that is why they acted as they did.
And it’s one good reason when you see the words ‘for the good of the people ‘ you should pay very good attention to what comes next.

“You are a slow learner, Winston.”
“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”
“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“gingerbaker” has it wrong. It is the AGW CO2 is bad hoaxsters who have committed crimes against humanity by causing the diversion of hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to nonsense projects and research. Add to that the misery they have caused by making energy unaffordable for many of the world’s poor.

A shame that someone taking the name of the iconic Ginger Baker can sour cream with his incredible rant. But I have a couple of things to say to him: “What if you (and your alarmists) are wrong? What if your ‘cure’ causes more deaths than you think the sceptical cause does?”

Funny how totalitarianism and self-righteousness go hand in hand with his sort. Additionally, his type are typically cowards, so that makes him a yellow-bellied watermellon. He does not own the cajones to pay a visit here.

When we look at all the misery this cold winter has caused the people of the U S, (blocked roads, accidents due to iced roads, extra fuel usage, to name a few) why would anyone want a colder Earth? It still makes no sense to me. Warmer is always better.

So, Bill Forsyth who I believe is “Ginger Baker”, you are welcome to tell me to my face right here, that exercising my constitutional free speech right to an opinion on climate is worthy of a war crimes style trial.

Don’t worry. In the next-to-zero chance such a thing ever happened, you could always get off by pleading ignorance. But be sure to archive this site for evidence.

[Reply: Isn’t it interesting that skeptical sites allow contrary comments like yours? Alarmist blogs would immediately delete such comments if they were aimed at their blog owners. ~ mod.]

Ah, Ginger Baker … truly one of the useful idiots. Just wait until your Stalinist prescriptions actually get implemented [they won’t; but let’s imagine] and you’re one of the first to no longer be useful!

Those pathetic people, they jumped onto the CAGW “bandwagon” to get their “fair share” of fame, notoriety, great jobs, free NSA Grant monies, etc., and now they are beginning to realize their “great flim-flam scam” is becoming obvious to the public and thus fear, fright and desperation has set in because they know very well that if they can’t keep those Average Temperatures increasing like they predicted then they will most likely be defamed, demoted, out of money and/or out of a job with no prospects of being hired by anyone.

1) the nazis were small potatos compared to other leftist regimes. Stalin killed about twice as many people as Hitler did, Mao four times – count all of che queveras achievements and he makes hitler look like a piker too. All fine heros of the revolution, mind you, but ginger’s best friends do indeed make the nazis (who were also far left, not far right) look like beginners.

2) the billion dead risk is real too – it’s just much more likely to come from the starvation that could be triggered by a world wide temperature decline than it is from warming.

As I’ve suggested in another context,. Gore at al really could be looking at international prosecution at some future time.

Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions
Date:
July 8, 2013
Source:
CSIRO Australia
Summary:
Increased levels of carbon dioxide have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called carbon dioxide fertilization, according to new research.

I mean surely if this is happening then ginger baker has to be absolutely rabied dog crazy.

I’m with Anthony, you’ve just got to laugh at this. Mr. Forsyth is only helping us out by spewing such ignorant hate. Not only can he not see that he is just another ignorant hypocrite — owning a coffee distribution company that probably does not use unicorn power to distribute their product — but he will go from comparing us to Nazis and claiming we are murdering billions of people to claiming that the world population is growing far too fast and needs to be culled.

I’d like to think that this kind of ridiculous vitriol, though not a new thing from their side in the climate debate, is a sign that they realize they are wrong and those that still push the “end of the world” scenario are purely in it for money and power like Al Gore. But, I know far too many university educated (part of the problem?) who buy this stuff and when you point out evidence to the contrary, instead of looking and thinking about it; they refuse to look at the data and dismiss it as “right wing” propaganda.

Maybe is because Stalin and Mao were communists and, like the green movement, their intentions were to create a better world, so their wrongdoings can be condoned, whereas Hitler belonged to fascist right.

Perhaps they should first be calling for those , like AAAS, who campaigned for food to be converted into fuel for their cars, should be prosecuted for similar “crimes”. There’s far more chance of proving it killed someone.

Ginger Baker reference also leads to the fact that he was also the drummer for the group Blind Faith. They only had one album, which, in fact, went to number one. The distinction of that album is that it was the first, and probably only, album that hit number one without any of the songs on the album ever breaking the Top 100.

“Let’s imagine that at some point in the not too distant future it becomes obvious that climate change is real..”

… is pretty fatuous given the climate change has been a constant event on earth for 4.5 billion years.

But more importantly, the point:

“Let’s also imagine that there is convincing evidence that certain people/groups have actively engaged in misinformation campaigns … and doing so for their own benefit … should be held accountable.”

… could equally apply if and when the AGW theory turns out to be the junk science that an increasing number of PHDs consider it to be.

Would the author of the post, in these circumstances, say yes to the prosecution of the AGW scaremongers from IPCC lead authors (most of whose work and careers being largely funded from the public pursue) all the way down to Greenpeace activists who have tricked governments around the world into spending billions on unnecessary measures like driving millions of people into fuel poverty through outrageous carbon taxes, all the while knowingly covering up all evidence (‘hide the decline’) they encounter which does not fit their theory.

As for ‘Ginger Baker’, well if his knowledge of history is anything to go by, I wouldn’t take any advice from him on any other subject:

“Can anyone explain to me how it was proper to prosecute Goebbels…”

Is it not common knowledge that Goebbels committed suicide in Hitler’s bunker and, therefore, could not have been prosecuted for war crimes?

Anyone who brings a Nazi analogy into an argument is really admitting to have lost that argument.

Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 10:14 am
Publishing someone’s name and address on the internet is so damn classy.

Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 10:23 am
Knowing and publishing are two different things. Was Anthony similarly outraged by the free speech claims of Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg? It’s his reputation to lose. He’s just lost it.

“That comment was written by “gingerbaker” who just happens to be easy to find, since the link in his comment to his photo website and photo store is public information.”

richard says:
March 19, 2014 at 10:21 am “maybe Ginger baker meant this, 65% of the world’s population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills … At least 2.8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese. ….”

This was what the Romans said about the Etruscans, before they invaded and subdued their country and economy, melting their bronze works to make Roman coins. “They are fat, and spend their days eating two meals a day at fine tables together. They are unworthy of their ancestors.”

The Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceaușescu, said the peasants were too fat before his brutal collectivist take-over of the country.

There is also a sustainable diet in Cuba which keeps the people quite svelte: “5 pounds of rice, 5 pounds of sugar, 1 pound of salt, 10 ounces of beans, 8 ounces of cooking oil, 0.15 ounces of coffee mixed with unknown stuff that isn’t coffee, 6 ounces of very-low-quality fish, and 1 pound of a disgusting product made from unsalable animal parts, per month.” This they purchase with their 50cents a day wages.” ref: Robert Zubrin

Bill McKibben praised this holodomor in Cuba as a “semi-sustainable diet.” Progressive scientists and governments – or world empires – talking about personal weight and diet has in the past been a precursor to violence and impoverishment.

The interesting thing is how trite Ginger is……. Is this the best, the Climate Genius can come up with?
The limp wrist-ed Chicken Little’s , who hang on every word of the so called Climate Scientists are getting desperate! By the way I cringe every time I hear word “Scientist” applied to to someone, who thinks he is a scientist because He can program a computer. Maybe we should call them Climate hackers

Marching, filling bags with sand, everyone growing their own vegetables,

Sort of fits the whole reverting to the 19th century the progressive seem to be advocating for everyone, except themselves I’m sure, scientist with their sensibilities I’m sure would have more important things to be doing besides manual labor.

‘gingerbaker’ {who may or may not be someone called Bill Forsyth} has an unstated false premise. It is that he requires that there are Earth dooming con$pira¢ies carried out by us independent thinkers who do not engage in his collectivized ideas and collectivized morality regarding climate. (Doesn’t that sound somewhat like the con$pira¢ies Mann advocates in his book?)

Philosophies that require collectivization in any way or any form on any subject are the necessary and sufficient cause of socially applied authoritarianism. It is the antithesis of the philosophy of individualism as a basis for human association.

Doing things based on the premises of collectivist philosophy leads the horrific nadir of civilizations as we saw in the 20th century.

NOTE: Is ‘gingerbaker’ intellectually an Oreskes copy cat or what? I bet ‘is’.

Another climate kook who wants to jail us for doubting predictions of things that won’t happen, and over claimed evidence that is never actually clear without a huge marketing push and the suppression of any questions of the evidence or claims.
In other words he is a pseudo-religious ignorant fascist wannabe, a cowardly bully of the lowest order. Sort of like some climate scientists who have infested the public space, in other words.

That comment was written by “gingerbaker” who just happens to be easy to find, since the link in his comment to his photo website and photo store is public information.

Of course it is, but by republishing it and plastering the WHOIS all over his front page, and then bragging about it, Watts has now revealed himself in the most dramatic manner possible to be the crass, classless fool that most people already know him to be, Really, that’s so … mid nineties.

Totally out of touch with modern reality. I think he should sue, his reputation has been sullied.

I doubt they would show up in The Hague, as far as have noticed by the time people like him will degenerated to the low level his rant shows it is all they have left.. Hang in there Mr. Watts you are doing fine.
(BTW do you have a site where I can look at your weather station products? Send an E-Mail please i am north of the 49th), Thanks, love your site and the sane people that follow it.

“we are witnessing the murder-in-slow-motion of at least a billion people” – given to exaggeration much?

“A crime perpetrated primarily through the use of a concerted propaganda campaign” – you talking about the global warming fraud here?.

“Anthony Watts should be frogmarched to The Hague as well” – as well as…. who? Who runs the Hague?

From the blog post:
“He’s referring to those [scoundrels like Mr. Watts] who are knowingly presenting misinformation for political or financial gain” – what, knowingly present misinformation for political or financial gain… you mean like the totally controlled global mainstream media?

Now I wish I hadn’t wasted my time typing all that in, because mr. anonymous is probably a basement-dweller or a paid internet troll. Either way, I’ve just wasted 10 minutes of my life (and a 50/50 chance I’ll be on yet another list for completely harmless activity).

For those who dispute the existence of paid (state-sponsored) internet trolls – please do some research. Personally, I think Mr. Watts should just ignore the silly commenter. He’ll just suck you in – by design.

“how about all those who have already died because they cannot afford heating

If you cannot afford heating in a world filled with carbon and hydrocarbons then you are probably burning those hydrocarbons instead of making products out of them. Learn some physics.”

Sheesh, Thomas!! Don’t you know the difference between physics and economics? I guess you’re not old, infirm, on a ‘state’ pension/fixed income. If you were you would know what it’s like to consider that wonderful problem brought to us by algoreism: ‘Heat, or eat?’ But you’re not old, you’re an idiot.

The more the Warmunists speak, the more they expose themselves.
I do not care if mankind is causing “Climate Change” far beyond the worst- case examples given by those totalitarian enablers, I’ll have nothing to do with them, or their hateful philosophies.

James Ard says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:34 am“I got a tweet favorited by Jack Bruce the other day..”

James, d’ya think you could tweet the real (74 years-old!!!!) Ginger Baker and let him know what his namesake is saying. Perhaps GB (real) will have something to say about the abuse of his name – which i am sure is copyrighted.

Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 11:21 am
__________________
Kudos for publishing your stupid remarks via your own name, rather than just being another anonymous troll, using logical fallacy in support of your argument. Since you chose only a personal attack as your modus operandi, we are left to understand that YOU agree with the words of “gingerbaker” and his ilk.

Thomas Lee…You are backing a losing horse; an empty argument; there’s nothing in it; a cause that has ‘no proof’ (Patrick Moore said that!). But if I tell you that you will no doubt rebut it – you can even refute me, I don’t care. That’s OK. It makes you a ‘Hollow Cause Denier’.

What is less obvious is that all of their arguments re: prosecution can be reflected back at them. It could be argued that the Greens are criminally negligent do to their “cynically” promoting very expensive measures that result in nothing. The money spent or lost is then not available for other economic endeavours such as helping the 3rd world raise their populations out of poverty.

Every dollar spent or lost on reducing CO2 is a dollar that could have been spent reducing poverty.

Alternatively every dollar spent or lost on reducing CO2 is a dollar that could have been spent on reducing or mitigating habitat destruction.

Instead they campaign for measures that reduce our ability overall to adapt (because we will have less money to spend to do it) and in many cases increase habitat destruction (e.g. biofuels.)

“Bulkhead 50 says:
March 19, 2014 at 10:48 am
Ginger Baker reference also leads to the fact that he was also the drummer for the group Blind Faith. They only had one album, which, in fact, went to number one. The distinction of that album is that it was the first, and probably only, album that hit number one without any of the songs on the album ever breaking the Top 100.”

Something about that album rang a bell – googled it, and yep, the album probably sold out because of its cover (reminds me of a lot of classical records, the fancier the cover, the worse the recording inside….).

Frogmarch….how about Gingerboy goes to “Frogstar B”? See if he does as well as Zaphod Beeblebrox …probably has about the same ego, so who knows…

Ironic that gingersnap also worries about billions of people being killed by CAGW, but isn’t that what the watermelon elites want? OH, I guess they want to be able to determine the means of extinction.

Well, when the warmists resort to ever-increasing ad-hominem attacks, it’s obvious that the are losing…hopefully they’ll learn how to do real science, and be skeptical about folks who don’t “show their work”.

And it appears ginger&co. are doing the very thing they accuse skeptics of: by saying H. and G. were not that bad, they are becoming “deniers” themselves…total disrepect for folks who have been through hell…

It may be that that the greens will be responsible when world war III breaks out because we can’t supply Europe with energy because of their war on co2. Maybe Putin could have been stopped if we had any leverage with energy exports.

See there is a glimmer of awareness percolating into the damp minds of these activists, the political agenda, UN IPCC has set in motion actions that have and will caused unnecessary misery and death worldwide.
The projection of their inner darkness, upon all who question, is a clear indication that the likes of pseudo Ginger Baker, does know what he aids and abets.
So these kind are self exposed, not as much stupid and innocent, as deeply disturbed and malignant.
Funnily enough, there may well come Nuenberg style trials, as the cost of this obscene mass insanity has cost more than a war.

Something about that album rang a bell – googled it, and yep, the album probably sold out because of its cover (reminds me of a lot of classical records, the fancier the cover, the worse the recording inside….).
____________________________
The Blind Faith album cover was decidedly plain and the album sold well because the music inside was very good. Ginger Baker was also a founding member of Cream and was considered one of the premier drummers of that era (or any era, for that matter.)

@john Whitman – there is an easier way. Number of souls on the planet = 7 billion (roughly). Average life span = 70 years (a bit high but we will allow for an increase). Number of years until 2100 = 86.

“how about all those who have already died because they cannot afford heating

If you cannot afford heating in a world filled with carbon and hydrocarbons then you are probably burning those hydrocarbons instead of making products out of them. Learn some physics.”

Thomas:
I know economics is a difficult subject so let me try a different tact. I live in Arizona. It gets really hot here in the summer. Every year we have a few people die because they can’t afford to run their air conditioning. Due to regulations from Obama’s EPA several coal-fired generating stations have been shut down and more are scheduled for shut down. This has resulted in power costs rising ~20% with further increases on the way. Is it not logical to assume that this will result in more people who can’t afford to run their AC? … and by logical extension… more deaths? So I can make a well founded claim that AGW proponents and their policies will kill people. Should I be frog marched to the Hague?

The concern troll Thomas pretends to be concerned about our host’s supposed “classlessness” and the possible over-zealous actions of “anonymous admirers” (who apparently would have to also have the brains of a turnip to not be able to figure out who “gingerbaker” really is”).
I’d turn that around, though. What of the hordes of mindless, clueless true believers out there who, upon seeing that skeptics are now to be considered as far, far worse than n@zis, indeed, far worse than even Hitler himself would now take the law into their own hands? So what if they went to jail? They’d be martyrs, having saved “billions” of people. Perhaps the authorities should be alerted about this “gingerbaker” fellow.

Knowing and publishing are two different things. Was Anthony similarly outraged by the free speech claims of Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg? It’s his reputation to lose. He’s just lost it.”

What “gingerbaker” wrote about Anthony Watts.

But the Nazis were only small potatoes – they merely murdered millions. But right now, today, we are witnessing the murder-in-slow-motion of at least a billion people. A crime perpetrated primarily through the use of a concerted propaganda campaign. Can anyone explain to me how it was proper to prosecute Goebbels, yet the Koch brothers and the former head of Exxon Mobil should not be similarly prosecuted?

And yes, I believe Anthony Watts should be frogmarched to The Hague as well. No question, in my mind. In fact, I find the idea of a defense of his actions ethically reprehensible.

When someone says something like that about you they lose their right to anonymity every one has a right to out their accusers. Any one who suggest such thing is beyond contemp.

“Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 10:44 am

how about all those who have already died because they cannot afford heating

If you cannot afford heating in a world filled with carbon and hydrocarbons then you are probably burning those hydrocarbons instead of making products out of them. Learn some physics.”

I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying that something is wrong with being poor or using carbon and hydrocarbons to stay warm?

Treating these anal orifices with laughter and derision is entirely appropriate, but it has the possibility of minimizing the persistent and pernicious damage this mindless climate hysteria has inflicted,and will inflict in the future, on the whole world. The people pushing this alarmism act as if they are, unintentionally or intentionally, completely ignorant of the basic economic principle of “opportunity costs” i.e. in a world of finite resources the cost one pays in opportunities one can’t pursue if one chooses to invest in something else and how that cost expands exponentially when what you choose to invest in is entirely unproductive.

The best story I’ve seen that illustrates this principle is from the Wikipedia entry on Berkshire-Hathaway

“…In 1962, Warren Buffett began buying stock in Berkshire Hathaway after noticing a pattern in the price direction of its stock whenever the company closed a mill. Eventually, Buffett acknowledged that the textile business was waning and the company’s financial situation was not going to improve. In 1964, Stanton made an oral tender offer of $111⁄2 per share for the company to buy back Buffett’s shares. Buffett agreed to the deal. A few weeks later, Warren Buffett received the tender offer in writing, but the tender offer was for only $113⁄8. Buffett later admitted that this lower, undercutting offer made him angry.[7] Instead of selling at the slightly lower price, Buffett decided to buy more of the stock to take control of the company and fire Stanton (which he did). However, this put Buffett in a situation where he was now majority owner of a textile business that was failing….

In 2010, Buffett claimed that purchasing Berkshire Hathaway was the biggest investment mistake he had ever made, and claimed that it had denied him compounded investment returns of about $200 billion over the subsequent 45 years.[7] Buffett claimed that had he invested that money directly in insurance businesses instead of buying out Berkshire Hathaway (due to what he perceived as a slight by an individual), those investments would have paid off several hundredfold.”

Although the entry suggests Buffet’s losses were in the neighborhood of several hundredfold the numbers suggest something more like several thousandfold between what he paid for B-H and $200 billion. Given that the world has diverted what is by now several $trillion into worthless research, extremely burdensome yet futile regulations, massive subsidies for wind and solar for the privilege of paying much higher energy costs, salaries and travel expenses for armies of climate bureaucrats flying to various garden spots across the planet to collectively harangue the rest of us about our profligate ways, etc., and that the run to the end of the century is nearly double Mr. Buffet’s tenure at B-H, the compounded “opportunity cost” of this CAGW misadventure will be almost incalculably large. The world in 2100 is liable to be poorer by 1 to several million dollars for each and every one of its billions of inhabitants.

Given that wealth is the largest determinant of a society’s ability to respond to the vagaries and variabilities of the environment, nothing that could possibly be accomplished by what we have sacrificed and are demanded to sacrifice in the future will come close to balancing the loss of wealth this complete misallocation of resources will engender, especially since, as even its most ardent supporters admit, the effect on the climate of all of it is likely to be too small to be even measurable.

We have your approximate area code, we have Sociologists, Psychologists Film Directors and scantily clad ‘pop stars’ on standby. Your ‘logic’ will not survive Eschenbach.

As for Anthony – Well they will probably ‘transfer’ you via The UK. We have armed, rebellious, ‘sceptics’ on standby ready to rescue you from The EU. Putin himself said that he would provide ‘big beefy paratroopers’ to help the cause.

If you cannot afford heating in a world filled with carbon and hydrocarbons then you are probably burning those hydrocarbons instead of making products out of them. Learn some physics.

Elf, they’re not talking about people in your upscale neighborhood.

One-third of the earth’s population subsists on $2 a day or less. The rise in harmless CO2 is keeping many of those poop people alive, not that you give a damn about them. Those folks can’t afford money for heating — not that there is any evidence that the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 is the cause of any measurable global warming. There isn’t.

After seeing your scurrilous comments, it is clear you are an unhappy reprobate, with nothing positive to contribute. [And the moderator should leave the Elf’s comments. Commentators here can deal with his ilk with no problem. Same with ‘Magma’, who appears to have been born unhappy.]

“Ginger Baker” needs to brush up on his history as well as more modern times. For anyone who is interested here are a few examples fascists and green ideology.

Fascist Ecology:
The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents
———–
An alternative to the new wave of ecofascism (Guardian 2010)
———–
‘Ecology’ and the Modernization of Fascism in the German Ultra-right
———–
Eco-fascists: How Radical Conservationists Are Destroying Our Natural Heritage
[Elizabeth Nickson – Book]
———–
Friedrich Nietzsche and His Proto-Nazi Eco-Fascism
———–
Holistic Environmental Ethics and the Problem of EcofascismReferences.

@Rabbit, Stephen
The totalitarian tendencies of the greens are clear for all to see … except the greens itself. I occasionally point out to them that putting people in prison / excluding them from the vote / excluding them from debate / barring them from elected office / firing them / re-education them for their political opinion is not something we do in a democracy, and they seem genuinely shocked that I call them anti-democratic.

Even more hard to comprehend for the very same bunch is that fascism has it sturdiest political roots in the young Mussolini’s hateful communism and syndicalism. Mussolini’s old colleague “from the days” his days as director of the commie-paper Avanti! – Gramsci – said that Mussoloni slowly turned Avanti! into a “forum” for syndicalists: (p. 135)

“Megadroughts have historically led to the mass migration of humans away from drought affected lands, resulting in a significant population decline from pre-drought levels. They are suspected of playing a primary role in the collapse of several pre-industrial civilizations, including the Anasazi of the North American Southwest,[2] the Khmer Empire of Cambodia,[3] the Mayan of Mesoamerica,[4] the Tiwanaku of Bolivia,[5] and the Yuan Dynasty of China.[6] As such they constitute one of the greatest threats to human civilization. The African Sahel region in particular has suffered multiple megadroughts throughout history, with the most recent lasting from approximately 1400 AD to 1750 AD.[7] North America experienced at least four megadroughts during the Medieval Warm Period.”

The Blind Faith album cover was decidedly plain and the album sold well because the music inside was very good. Ginger Baker was also a founding member of Cream and was considered one of the premier drummers of that era (or any era, for that matter.)
=============================
The sleeve of my copy, bought when it first came out, could not really be described as “decidedly plain”, although I think the US version was different to the British one, which might explain things. On the other hand, the music is definitely excellent, but then it does have Steve Winwood playing on it, which helps.

how about all those who have already died because they cannot afford heating

If you cannot afford heating in a world filled with carbon and hydrocarbons then you are probably burning those hydrocarbons instead of making products out of them. Learn some physics.

You are not widely traveled I see. There is a lot for you to learn about poverty, dung burning for cooking, soot from coal cooking, deforestation for firewood, $2 per day to live on, leaking shack roofs. This is why people like you are such a problem, you see things only from your own perspective and think there are easy solutions. If you are widely traveled then you are selfish.

I find it weird so many people are looking at a comment for how appropriate/inappropriate it was, but nobody’s looking at the blog post it was posted on. AndThenTheresPhysics (Anders) wrote a post misrepresenting the article in question, downplaying it in a way that makes it more palatable.

I wrote a post about this because it seemed nobody else was commenting on the issue. The basic point is:

Long story short the money that has been spent on this farce could have been used to bring food and fresh water and jobs to people who desperately needed it. This misappropriation of funds has probably killed more than any weather condition ever has. The AGW religion has only really managed to discredit science, media and real environmental concerns. It has opened our eyes to just how stupid our representatives have become and serves to reinforce that consensus science is still a very bad practice.
Our kids will take this as a lesson hopefully to not believe everything they are told and to not count on the gov to tell them the truth. I personally cannot believe how widespread this enron scheme has become, However, one thing has become abundantly clear… We know they are lying and we do not believe a word they say no matter how nasty and loud they get, so let them dig the hole deeper for themselves that way there will be no doubt who the real criminals are.

While we’re at it, we should prosecute those people who claim that gastric ulcers are caused by bacterial infections, when all right-thinking people know that they are really caused by excess acid due to stress. Think of all the misery these deniers are causing!

Wait.. What’s that you say? Gastric ulcers really are caused by bacterial infections?

Let me get this right – his reputation has been “sullied”, by carefully repeating what he actually wrote word for word?

Liberal/Leftist morality: Saying anything you want to, no matter how vile, is absolutely protected and sacrosanct. But REPEATING anything a leftist says that makes them look bad (even to themselves) is something to be harshly punished.

It brings to mind something I keep going back to, a fundamental difference in the basic worldview of leftists which pretty much explains all of their behavior; it’s their basic definition of Good and Evil.

To a Leftist:
Good = “Anything I say or do, or which people that I like say or do, because we all know that we are Good, and therefore everything we do is Good. And we are only judged by our intentions, not our results.”

Evil = “Anything the people who I disagree with about anything say or do, because all the Good People never disagree with me, and therefore those who do disagree are EVIL. And they are judged by their intentions, not their results, but since we already know they are EVIL, we know that our enemies intentions are always EVIL.”

Seriously, that is how Leftists think. There’s nothing more to their worldview than that. I would say that it is childish, but it’s actually a rare child who is as reprehensibly moronic as the average leftists are.

“But the Nazis were only small potatoes – they merely murdered millions.”
Hitler killed his millions and Stalin his tens of millions … and Mao his billions.

“Can anyone explain to me how it was proper to prosecute Goebbels, yet the Koch brothers and the former head of Exxon Mobil should not be similarly prosecuted?”
What I can tell you is Goebbles was never prosecuted. He committed suicide in the Bunker long before any Nurenburg Trials. I mean, if you’re going to trot out tired old Nazi comparisons, at least get some basic facts right. Sheesh!

… Publishing someone’s address and WHOIS on the front page of your blog, not so classy. Classless.

Bragging about it? Well, even less classy. Watts had better hope that no problems arise from his post from overzealous and over enthusiastic anonymous admirers. Better to think things through.

The whole problem in the first place is anonymity and lack of personal responsibility. I don’t respect Bill Forsyth’s right to anonymously advocate war crime type trials for people like me. That’s mob mentality. Forsyth bears personal responsibility for his words, as do we all. Which is why I posted as I did above, suggesting that anyone making a list of ‘climate war criminals’ would do well to put me on their list.

There are too many damn cowards in this world.

If you come for Anthony Watts because of his blog, in principle you’ve come for me. I’ll be damned if I’ll be intimidated into anonymity or into taking an ambiguous stance by lice such as Forsyth, on the contrary. Such incidents compel me to make my position clear. If you come for Watts you’ve come for me. I won’t be going quietly.

If you come for Anthony Watts because of his blog, in principle you’ve come for me. I’ll be damned if I’ll be intimidated into anonymity or into taking an ambiguous stance by lice such as Forsyth, on the contrary. Such incidents compel me to make my position clear. If you come for Watts you’ve come for me. I won’t be going quietly.”

We are doing infinitely more than you and your ilk. YOU are promoting mass starvation through your misguided “carbon” scare.

By ‘we’ I assume you mean ‘you’. You didn’t answer the question. According to the OP, it’s already happening, since the claim was that people are desperate for jobs, food and water. I simply want to know what is the problem that this is already happening. Things sounds pretty dire already.

If you’ve got these kinds of problems that the OP indicates, then you need to own up to them.

Nice to see my comment below that statement to be honest. I spent much of yesterday arguing on the previous thread, rather [eloquently] I think that climate sciences communications problems was caused by climate science [itself] and not so called ‘skeptics’ before I got put in moderation.

Never insulted anyone, held my own in arguments. Then got put on moderation. Basically [because] I was making a logical coherent argument that climate science so called communication s problem was entirely of its owns making,

It could be a sort of race memory on the part of the far left that causes these outbursts. We know the Communists have sought cover under the Green Umbrella and they might have seen a chance for revenge for the McCarthyism of the early 1950’s. Think how wonderful it would be for their egos if they could host their very own House Un-American Activities Committee and persecute all those nasty right wingers that so upset them. Sweet revenge indeed. (Of course they would also be saving the planet….(sarc))

Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:59 pm
“By ‘we’ I assume you mean ‘you’. You didn’t answer the question. According to the OP, it’s already happening, since the claim was that people are desperate for jobs, food and water. I simply want to know what is the problem that this is already happening. Things sounds pretty dire already.”

Ivor Ward says:
March 19, 2014 at 2:16 pm
“Think how wonderful it would be for their egos if they could host their very own House Un-American Activities Committee and persecute all those nasty right wingers that so upset them.”

Very true. When the Berlin Wall came down, all the communists in academia {in other words, most of academia} migrated straight into the enviro movement. Now they promote their ulterior motive from under the green [camouflage] of ‘saving the planet’.

[BTW, I miss your old screen name. I just read Captains Courageous again.]

I would have thought that with hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon then none of them would be desperate, especially for such simple things as jobs, food and water. Clearly something has gone wrong, whatever could it be? You don’t seem to be able to enlighten me on that subject.

phase 2: As coal plants are going back online in the West to great publicity, by happenstance the largest hurricane ever hits the USA. it’s a monster .. fear and panic ensues. CAGW arises again, this time at a a medieval level … With a McCarthy-like demogogue leading, the skeptics trials begin.

“But the Nazis were only small potatoes – they merely murdered millions.”
Hitler killed his millions and Stalin his tens of millions … and Mao his billions.

Hitler’s direct criminal responsibility for the deaths of millions is well documented. Stalin’s body count is not as well established. Estimates range as high as 25 million (last time I checked). In both cases deaths caused by military operations are excluded, or both counts would be higher. Mao’s body count is harder even than Stalin’s to estimate — our access to records is not as good among other reasons. But I think billions is way too high.

The law (mainline Western law as known and practiced in England and her former colonies) makes important distinctions between:

accidental death — no criminal liability
excusable homicide — shouldn’t have happened, but understandable in the circumstances
negligent death — no criminal intent, but failure to take reasonable & customary care
justifiable homicide — self defense or defense of other innocent persons when there is no other option.
mainslaughter — callous disregard of human life. Sort of negligence on steroids.
murder — intentional killing. This is further broken down into pre-meditated and not.

As long as we’re talking about who should be put in prison we should at least reference established legal doctrines distinguishing different levels of responsibility and guilt.

The primary dividing line is the presence of Mens Rea, or criminal intent (literally evil mind). If you intend to cause extreme harm, including death — either at the outset or in the heat of the moment, then the act moves up the criminal scale to murder. If not, then it is judged as some level of negligence.

So we have some judgements to make regarding Stalin: were the deaths caused by the collapse of agriculture in the Ukraine criminal or merely negligent? Both cases can be argued; certainly Stalin dismissed any reports of suffering resulting from his policies and his underlings were much too fearful for their own safety to raise objections, if indeed any occurred to them. Certainly Stalin was not shy about ordering people killed, but it is also true he really believed imposing Communist doctrine would improve the lot of the average person. You might even say he was certain.

Same issue with Mao. Did he really want to starve all those people during the “Great Leap Forward”? I don’t think so, but into the vacuum created by incompetence and negligence he poured ample amounts of ideology and the result was lots of bodies. We really don’t know how many, but I’m pretty sure “billions” is way wide of the mark.

So back to the discussion at hand. The GingerBakers of the word act as if their knowledge of actions and consequences is absolutely certain — to the point where different opinions must be criminal. This is a good indication of the decline in education, particularly history. I don’t care what your political leanings are, if you read enough history you can’t escape the conclusion that the real world is almost always more complicated than we believe. Everyone makes mistakes, often because judgement is clouded by personal involvement. It seems what we have in GingerBaker an others is the immaturity and impatience of teenagers persisting well into their middle years. They are so certain and seem to have so little awareness of just what philosophical company they keep. Cromwell’s plea:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

does not appear to make any impression on that crowd.

I honestly don’t know whether the world will become warmer or colder in the decades ahead, and I don’t believe anyone else does either. There have certainly been people here who expressed confidence, in some cases bordering on certainty, that we are entering another mini ice age. But I haven’t heard anyone claim we need to spend trillions of dollars immediately creating vast orbiting solar mirrors (or any other ambitious scheme) to stave off the soon-to-be advancing glaciers.

Some things we simply cannot know with any certainty. I submit the climate and its suitability for continued human life 100 years from now is one of them. It is both pointless and just plain wrong to criminalize any particular crystal ball vision on a topic dominated by uncertainty. Global economic collapse due to uncontrolled government spending is far more likely and much closer in time than any imagined climate catastrophe. Especially if we have to build prisons for all the heretics who don’t accept The Truth as given by GingerBaker.

I write to provide a correction to an error of fact in your post at March 19, 2014 at 2:43 pm.

In response to dbstealey using “we” as a collective noun for AGW-sceptics, you say,
“That tells me everything I need to know about ‘you’. Thanks.”

Sorry, but it only tells you dbstealey is one of many sceptics of AGW.
However, your claim that it “tells {you} all {you} need to know about {him}” informs everybody you are a self-opinionated bigot.

Perhaps you would be willing to reconsider your bigoted views for the benefit of yourself: nobody else is interested in them. They are as daft as the comments from other trolls who are using this thread to assert that far-right is extreme left.

I don’t respect Bill Forsyth’s right to anonymously advocate war crime type trials for people like me.

So it’s the first amendment that you have a problem with. Well lucky for you there are well defined procedures in the constitution to change it more to your liking…

I know it’s difficult for brain dead thugs such as yourself to grasp simple concepts that normal men and women don’t need explained. I’ll walk you through it slowly and I’ll try to use small words.
I am ~not~ the government of the United States. There’s a difference between what I respect and what Congress respects in the laws it passes. While the First Amendment restricts the laws Congress can pass, it does not restrict what I need or need not respect. It does not mean that I intend to legally restrict the cockroach Forsyth’s anonymous free speech when I say that I do not respect his right to anonymously advocate war crime type trials. He is free to do so, and I would have the law no other way. If you understood principles (which I will get to in a moment below), you would already understand this.
Not being the government of the United States, we at WUWT are free to deduce his identity if he is careless, and we are free to announce it.
This is what I meant by not respecting his right to anonymously advocate war crime type trials for people like me, moron.
It irritates me that scum such as yourself come here to support naked thuggery and intimidation citing the Constitution. How dare you. Do you dream of a world where people can not express views that are contrary to mainstream? Where those you disagree with are ‘frogmarched’ to war crimes trials? And you cite the Bill of Rights in defense of this atrocity. Both obscene and profane.

I don’t recall him using your name.

I’m sure you’d prefer that, thug, for nobody to stand up unless they are attacked by name. See, another thing that thugs like you often have a difficult time grasping are principles. It’s why I supplied my own name, and why I stated that anybody coming for Watts because of his blogging comes for me. Incidentally, it’s why thuggery doesn’t much work in this country, because honest men have principles and stand together. But I’m not fool enough to think I can teach you what principles are or why they matter in a blog comment.

…..”And yes, I believe Anthony Watts should be frogmarched to The Hague as well. No question, in my mind. In fact, I find the idea of a defense of his actions ethically reprehensible.”
=====================
Why not place him in front of a Senate Subcommittee and see what he has to say.
It seems at this point, the Hague, might be wildly optimistic.
BTW, what exactly constitutes a “frogmarch”.

“So it’s the first amendment that you have a problem with. Well lucky for you there are well defined procedures in the constitution to change it more to your liking. I don’t recall him using your name.”

The first amendment doesn’t guarantee anonymity. In fact, people are assumed to stand behind what they say, which is the reason the first amendment exists in the first place. If you just want to print a screed on a bunch of post-it-notes and leave them around town in the dead of night no one will know who’s voicing the opinion, so no protection is needed.

The first amendment also doesn’t mean you get to say anything you want and no one can criticize it, or hold it up to ridicule. You might actually want to read it.

The truth is of course, that it is the Warmistas who are guilty of crimes against humanity, for the use of disinformation and outright lies, forcing energy prices up, and causing energy poverty, suffering, and death among poorer peoples. Absolutely nothing good has or ever will come from their actions, since they aren’t based on science, much less common sense.
Whether or not they will ever be held accountable is questionable. Perhaps some of the more notorious liars and scamsters might spend time behind bars. Some of the rest, if they have a shred of humanity left might actually feel ashamed of what they’ve done.

Speaking of frog-march worthy, “call-of-nature” crimes against nature, did anybody else catch that article which claims that Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, has been using her headquarters building to inject her untreated feces into the Potomac? I’m not kidding!!!! YUK!!!!

Alan Watt: Numbers may be misleading. My grandpa’s small enterprise was nationalized after a communist takeover. Of course, the first thing nationalized was cash, ready for paying utility bills. Then they sued him for not paying utility bills. He died of a heart attack, and therefore he does not appear in any of your statistics.

Richard Briscoe says:
March 19, 2014 at 9:22 am
Goebbels was never prosecuted, on account of he was dead by the end of the war.
==========
Someone that looked like Goebbels was dead by the end of the war. Or at least someone that looked like Goebbels after being burned with gasoline.

Of course what an amazing plan. Kill yourself and burn the bodies with gasoline so no one can recognize you. Much better than killing a double and burning their bodies with gasoline enough to hide that they are doubles. And then escaping. Why didn’t Hitler think of such a cunning plan?

@Mark Bofill – I’m with you. If they come for Anthony they come for me too. And for all the other good folks who regularly post here. And they’ll find I can be one mean son-of-a-bitch to deal with.

These people had better watch their step – we can PROVE that the policies they advocate are killing millions of people already. THEY are responsible for a new Holocaust that is already underway, and they have the brass balls to accuse us skeptics of the mass murder which they are committing and which we are, in the last analysis, striving to stop. [snip – thanks for the support, but let’s not go there – Anthony]

‘gingerbaker’ type ideology of intolerance is from the self-righteous collectivists who will harvest your property, your body and your thoughts to use for socially determined ends at the point of a gun . . . to save the Earth from you.

So-called socially implemented collectivism necessarily must cause the nadir of civilizations like those in the 20th century who did the socially induced collectivist stuff by fatal coercion if necessary . . . most often fatal.

Hey , Curious George (on March 19, 2014 at 4:58 pm @richardscourtney), I loved your socially implemented collectivist atrocity list, but there are a lot more!!!!

Alan Watt: Numbers may be misleading. My grandpa’s small enterprise was nationalized after a communist takeover. Of course, the first thing nationalized was cash, ready for paying utility bills. Then they sued him for not paying utility bills. He died of a heart attack, and therefore he does not appear in any of your statistics.

I agree, an estimate is only that; an exact accounting is impossible. Would your grandfather have died from a heart attack at about the same time anyway? No one can say. There are multiple ways to come up with these estimates and they all have a margin of uncertainty. When you get into numbers as large as 25 million (Stalin), the uncertainty margin covers a lot of people’s grandpas.

My points were: (1) by any reasonable methodology claiming Mao’s attributable deaths number in the billions is way off, and (2) you have to distinguish between malice, gross negligence, simple negligence and accident in assigning criminal culpability. Voices like professor Torcello and GingerBaker urge us to ignore these distinctions and criminalize being wrong, or actually just daring to dispute the output of climate models.

A lot of people in the political sphere — not just Communists — assume they have the one simple formula by which to guide society, which will make everything better. So far as I can tell they have all been proved wrong by actual experience. In this past century the Communists win the prize for causing the most misery, suffering and death. But if we didn’t have Communism to screw us up, it would be something else, as it was before Communism arrived to claim the top spot on the dismal list of bad ideas.

Such is the human condition. There is no cure, but following people who lack any awareness and humility regarding their own limitations and failings only deepens and prolongs the misery. When the totality of human folly weighs me down, I pour a glass of single malt Scotch whisky and listen to some Bach.

I can only imagine how frantically Elifritz would cling to ‘Principles’ and the Constitution, were others painting the Scarlet letter upon HIM.

Get this: My Son, recently returned from Afghanistan posting, is considering a career in Law. While discussing more specific goals, he said, without any hint of sarcasm, “Constitutional Law is really interesting, but there will probably be no need for it in ten years”.

Of some note: They call it “direct action”. It is in all the little red books.
You will get the direct action. The “Earth First” types who pushed reason out of Greenpeace offered it to me in a parking lot once upon a time. 12 or 15 of them, one of me and they had baseball bats.” And do not come back if you know what is good for you, you baby killer.”
Do not underestimate the hate they have of freedom.

Bill Forsyth. It’s an assertion backed by 37 years of entrepreneurial activities that could only have been tackled by someone with a talent for reinvention. While his current persona is as the owner, manager and resident expert at PhotoGarden with stores on College Street and at Taft Corners, he is also the co-owner of Harrington Brothers, a coffee distribution business, and Climate Care Self Storage.

Because when I think climate, I usually think self storage.
Extreme obsession or extreme opportunism? You be the judge.

Hardly, Richard is not a socialist. Anyway, I bet there are many socialists that are also skeptics.
The Australian Federal senate blocked the carbon tax repeal AGAIN! 33-29 VOTES. Greens and Labor combined together. Now they are talking about a double dissolution. That’s nasty way.
If the government waits until July 1st there will be some new senators. I hope they do this and back date it.

On reading a number of comments on other blogs which are critical of Anthony and WUWT, it strikes me that most of those dullard commenters have [probably] never visitied WUWT or read any of Anthony’s blog posts, or observed how, for the most part, the moderation here is eminently fair.

And apparently, according to wiki, most of the billions of deaths will not be the direct result of Global…anything, just old age. Boring!!

“Of the roughly 150,000 people who die each day across the globe, about two thirds—100,000 per day—die of age-related causes.[6] In industrialized nations, the proportion is much higher, reaching 90%.[6]”

I am sick of these warmist people. They are now threatening people with their response to skeptics. Popular opinion was once eating fats caused heart disease, now they disagree with the with this theory. I don’t believe this, but it is a fact, obese and overweight people from any cause are likely to have diabetes, Type II. Lose the weight and it gets better. I know as I was diagnosed with Type 11 in 1995 when I was 85 kgs. Now I weigh 66 kgs so it is well controlled.

bushbunny says:
March 19, 2014 at 8:25 pm
“Hardly, Richard is not a socialist. Anyway, I bet there are many socialists that are also skeptics.”

I don’t come here for the politics, as far as Climate Science goes I’m as skeptical as anyone here about the global scam, I’m a Socialist, Trade unionist, working class guy, I never killed anyone nor wanted to kill anyone, my personal politics may upset a few people writing on here, but my views on climate and the greens would align nicely with many of you. I read this blog regularly and always find something interesting, but it concerns me when I read comments that always seek to define this issue as a battle between left and right, leave it out, thats the greens way of arguing, “paid by big oil” etc. this issue is too important to get into that sidetrack, stick to the facts, thats what I consider this blog to be about, facts.

Nazi is extreme right wing, Communism is extreme left wing, green is just extreme hippy.

I don’t think Thomas that our IPs would interest anyone if they want to hack people’s computers they can do it without us knowing. And not believing in CO2 or meteors causing climate change ain’t a crime. But feeding people with misinformation about what causes climate change and prohibiting or restricting life saving energy sources blamed is, well in my mind at least.

I had an ex husband like some trolls here. If he was the last to open the fridge and the milk jug was turned over, they would blame one of the kids. If you blame alarmists for lying through their teeth, they are saying we are Nazis and should be put away for our rebuttal. What country do they live in??? Sounds like communist China or Russia. Or a Spanish inquisition and burning witches at the stake. Totally a load of wankers, or totally deranged?.

Yes, well said!
But you state the truth and extremists are not interested in truth. They are only interested in spreading their excuses for their actions which are dangerous because extremism leads to totalitarianism.

The claim that ‘the pause’ does not exist is merely an example of extremist AGW-promoters making an excuse to themselves for the failure of their beliefs.

The claim that the ultra-right is extreme left is merely an example of the rabid right making an excuse to themselves for the history of destruction caused by their beliefs.

Why would anyone with a modicum of common sense even think that CAGW would cause a billion deaths? In other words, if it gets hotter, people die, so its better for it to get colder – sure as hell it ain’t gonna stay the same! ANybody ever heard of freezing to death?????

I’m worried about this. Such crazy accusations could be picked up by more hands-on oriented persons. While one should never be swayed by threats, I hope proper precautions are taken by those who could be objects of more than hate speech.

Calling the Nazis small potatoes IS denial 101, after all, isn’t that the gist of those disreputable fellows?
Perhaps Ginger Baker also wants those of us who don’t believe in the Warmist propaganda to be tattooed and put in camps.

I can only imagine how frantically Elifritz would cling to ‘Principles’ and the Constitution, were others painting the Scarlet letter upon HIM.

And about the silly Elfritz threat:

A Fool’s errand. You scare no one.

Very true. The far Left is always threatening normal folks. But the Elf’s threats sound like they come from a pre-pubescent kid in his mom’s basement: “They will pay, oh yes, they will pay!” People like Elfritz make for fun reading here. He wants to make readers think he is important, when he is only impotent.

And regarding your son’s comment: “Constitutional Law is really interesting, but there will probably be no need for it in ten years”. I think we are at that point already.

The claim that the ultra-right is extreme left is merely an example of the rabid right making an excuse to themselves for the history of destruction caused by their beliefs.
============================
Richard, your posts countering CAGW fanaticism are always well argued and worth reading but, on politics, you display all the attributes of a man who could start a fight in an empty room. It really matters not whether the N*z*s were socialists or Stalin killed more than Adolf or Mussolini started life as a communist or that Oswald Moseley was a Labour MP for several years before leaving to form the British Union of Fascists. The key, word which unites these people (and many others) is ‘extreme’. I don’t think it matters if one’s family is massacred by those on the left or the right, they are still massacred.

So. please Richard, we get it. You are a man of the left. You don’t like the politics of those on the right. That’s fine.

Out of interest, I DO equate the extreme left with the extreme right. Start at any point on a circle and travel 180 degrees in either direction and you wind up in exactly the same place and it really doesn’t matter what your motivation was in deciding to get there by moving to the left or to the right. The key battle is between liberty and authority which I think you get as you always manage to argue most cogently against the authoritarianism of the CAGW fanatics.

Anyway, you promised to buy me a pint of cider when I offered my description of a certain former LibDem politician so you are, in my book, ok.

It really matters not whether the N*z*s were socialists or Stalin killed more than Adolf or Mussolini started life as a communist or that Oswald Moseley was a Labour MP for several years before leaving to form the British Union of Fascists. The key, word which unites these people (and many others) is ‘extreme’. I don’t think it matters if one’s family is massacred by those on the left or the right, they are still massacred.

YES! THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT!
As I said to SpeedOfDark in my post you have answered

Yes, well said!
But you state the truth and extremists are not interested in truth. They are only interested in spreading their excuses for their actions which are dangerous because extremism leads to totalitarianism.

You have ignored that and replied saying to me

So. please Richard, we get it. You are a man of the left. You don’t like the politics of those on the right.

NO! YOU DON’T GET IT! We allow extremists of any kind a free-reign when we allow them to offload their responsibilities onto others. Stal1n was of the left and killed millions. H1tler was of the right and killed millions. Pol Pot was green and killed many thousands.

The assertion that the left, or the right, or greens. or etc. are free from the effects of extremism is a very, very dangerous falsehood.

This thread is about an assertion concerning our host that

In fact, I find the idea of a defense of his actions ethically reprehensible.

Please note the nature of that argument; i.e. the view is espoused that AW has views which put him in a category where it is “ethically reprehensible” to defend his actions which consist solely of stating his views notably on his blog.

Similarly, the ridiculous assertion that only the left – or only the right – commit harm generates a category which it is “ethically reprehensible” to defend. The claim that the ultra-right must be left wing because they do horrors is such a false catergorisation. And it is extremely ironic that right-wing extremists have used this thread to promote their nefarious falsehood.

In my view all people of good will need to unite in opposition to extremism and totalitarianism wherever an whenever it appears whether it is from the left, or the right, or from anywhere else. When you recognise that is what I am saying then you will have ‘got it’.

Richard

PS I still await your visit to the West Country so I can buy you that pint. But as a result of recent medical matters I need a few days notice if I am to attend the event.

richardscourtney says:
March 20, 2014 at 4:24 am
=======================
Richard, I apologise if I didn’t express myself very clearly, in particular with my remark:-

So. please Richard, we get it. You are a man of the left. You don’t like the politics of those on the right. That’s fine.

It was meant to be read in the context of my later comment:-

The key battle is between liberty and authority which I think you get as you always manage to argue most cogently against the authoritarianism of the CAGW fanatics.

On reading that latter comment, it is a little clumsy – maybe I should have used the words libertarianism and authoritarianism for greater clarity. Either way, I actually think we are vigorously agreeing with each other! The extremism is the thing, not the direction.

As is invariably the case, those who want to prosecute people for daring to differ:about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on.
haven’t a clue about the workings of science. The author of the above line, and a closet totalitarian, also describes himself as a philosopher whose research interests include “ethical theory”. In my experience, whenever I find myself in violent disagreement with a medical article, it’s most likely written by an “ethicist”. Most medical ethics is, IMHO, unethical.
Science doesn’t operate by consensus. That should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about science but so much misinformation about the workings of science has been distributed via the MSM that I have to constantly correct colleagues of mine who speak of the “science” of medicine. Medicine is an art, not a science as medicine, to a large degree, operates by consensus.
In a true science, 99.99% of scientists can hold a particular view but it only takes one scientist with a new theory that explains reality better than the views of the 99.99% to totally demolish “scientific consensus”. At this time CAGW as a scientific theory has been disproven. Just because those whose careers are based on the veracity of CAGW continue to support it makes not a whit of difference to the truth of the CAGW theory which has now morphed into a non-disprovable religious belief. Usually when people start talking about imprisoning those who disagree with them one knows that they’ve run out of scientific arguments and are seeking to silence those who have clearly proven them wrong.
Two of the factors that may be responsible for such a widely held misconception of science are, IMO, “medical science” and the legal system. Medicine makes a very big deal about consensus. The BC College of Physicians makes it clear to physicians that if their views on particular aspects of medicine are at variance with the consensus view, then they must so indicate in any communication to the public or they face loss of medical licensure. This is a rather blunt instrument for keeping physicians in line. When one looks in detail at various aspects of medicine, virtually every field contains a consensus view that is valid at a particular date. UpToDate, a resource used widely by physicians for the latest treatments for various conditions, is entirely consensus based and authored by physicians who are deemed the world experts in a particular area. If one practices according to these guidelines then one is virtually guaranteed to not get sued even though the treatment may be the wrong one for an individual patient.
Having come from a neurophysiology and neuropharmacology research background into medicine I found much of medical research to be sorely lacking. Admittedly, much of this is due to the marked heterogeneity of ones experimental subjects and despite disproval of the cholesterol hypothesis of coronary artery disease, this is still the consensus dogma in the US. When I asked a cardiologist at a CME event in Florida why US physicians still adhere to a disproven hypothesis his answer was “because the lawyers still believe in it”. In keeping with the BC College of Physicians guidelines about communication of medical information to the public, I should note that this is my personal view although a well respected cardiologist in BC gave a talk about 7 years ago entitled: Cholesterol; why everything you’ve learned about it is totally wrong
The legal corruption of science is another reason I believe that the public has delusions about the scientific method. Law courts rely on a judges decision as to who constitutes an expert in a given area. I first fell afoul of this unscientific practice the first time I had to appear in court regarding a patient with a brain injury. In keeping with my scientific background, I collected numerous references from medical journals which supported my position and these also corroborated the findings of the neuropsychiatrist who I had sent the patient to. In what I thought was an appropriate use of journal evidence my medical legal report contained references to the papers which I had utilized. The lawyer who was representing my patient was incensed and demanded this material to be removed from the medical legal as I was a GP, not an expert in neurology. My pointing out the years of neurophysiology and neuropharmacology research I’d done was to no avail and that’s when I learned that courts are completely driven by credentialism. In court I was limited to describing my clinical findings and to a larger degree deciphering the handwriting in my chart notes which, embarrassingly, in a few cases I couldn’t read myself.
It makes no difference if an expert witness is correct; what matters is whether the court agrees to their credentials to give testimony regarding a particular aspect of medicine. Again, the unscientific consensus system at work that gives such abominations as the class action lawsuit settlement for women with silicone breast implants based entirely on the testimony of “experts” whereas the science proved the opposite.
A judge choosing the testimony of one scientist expert witness over another scientist expert witness in his final judgement puts far more weight on how well the scientist comes across in a courtroom environment rather than whether the opinion of one expert has a closer match to reality than the other. Lawyers go out of their way to find “expert” witnesses that are more likely to come across well in a courtroom setting rather than finding a scientist who is the most likely to be closer to the truth.
With even the notion of an objective reality under attack in the post-modernist weltanschauung, it’s easy to see how consensus rather than fit to reality of a theory has come to dominate impressions of science. This is profoundly disturbing and the solution is for all readers of WUWT to correct people when they make this fundamental error in conversation. This should especially be the case in challenging “medical science” as a physician operates on heuristics which are learned under the tutelage of skilled practicioners of the art of medicine. A physician is isomorphic to a wetware expert system that, more often than not, can diagnose and suggest treatments for various disorders. Occasionally medicine utilizes the techniques of science but physicians who utilize purely “scientific medicine” perform more poorly than those physicians who utilize their wetware with laboratory evidence as well as personally significant observations of a patient to perform non-algorithmic diagnoses. A skilled physician should be viewed in the same light as a master potter, not a scientist.

That is an excellent analysis of the current situation regarding consensus “science”, the best I’ve seen in a good while.
The tie-in to modern medicine is very interesting as well.
CO2 could indeed be considered climate science’s cholesterol.

That’s odd. I would think that it would be Bill Forsythe who would want it cleared up that he wasn’t Gingerbaker, not the other way round, given being known as a climate n*zi probably wouldn’t be a desirable thing.

@john Whitman – there is an easier way. Number of souls on the planet = 7 billion (roughly). Average life span = 70 years (a bit high but we will allow for an increase). Number of years until 2100 = 86

the “off with their heads” remark was not my sincere opinion, FYI. However I am alarmed that such ideas of punishing CAGW skeptics as guilty of future crimes against humanity with severe Draconian measures (i.e. death) is being floated by the CAGW camp. Historically, witch hunts resulted in murder of many innocent people.

I perceive ‘gingerbaker’ {who may or may not be Bill Forsyth} as necessarily intolerant (to free individualist climate related thought) because he is calling for socially implemented intellectual collectivism on behalf of CAGW ideology.

Don’t be extreme wrt supporting either collectivism or individualism? I would find it intellectually extreme for anyone who is fundamentally a philosophical individualist to accept any compromise with the philosophy of collectivism. It would not be a moderate position to compromise in that context, it would be an extreme intellectual collapse.

Wow, this is like rabid dogs backed into a corner. I haven’t seem this much misplaced rage since well, McCarthy. But thank you all for providing your IPs to my archived log files. Good luck!

I hope you enjoyed your visit as much as I enjoyed mine. Carry on.

And, from an apparent CAGW religious believer of intolerance, anti-science, flat-earth (well, linear extrapolation-of-climate) theist, we have multiple examples of that extremism in just a few sentences.

The absolute anti-science rejection of any alternate theory,
The denial of 18 years of evidence against his religious belief in CAGW
The absolute trust in the propagandist faith of the priests (er, so-called scientists) of his religion
The absolute faith in the bureaucracy of an unaccountable, unknown, unelected, and absolute world government controlling the world’s energy supplies to the death of millions of its people.
The absolute faith in government-paid employees using government grants in government institutions to seek additional government-funded money to pay additional government bureaucracies to generate trillions in special additional taxes and laws from other government bureaucrats to benefit elected government bureaucrats and tyrants.http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php#comments-form
Explicit threats against those who simply wish to actually apply actual scientific method to theories opposing his religion and his intolerance

Oh, by the way, McCarthy was right. There WERE Communists, communist sympathizers, and communist assistants at many levels within the upper bureaucracies of each department and agency, exactly as charged. We regret now that he was wrongly silenced by the liberal extremists of the day, wrongly hated and attacked for being .. well, right.

All these gingerbaker comments seem somewhat just nasty, without any credibility, somewhat threatening without substance. I would not be surprised that he or she is a much younger person and like some grumpy teenager tries to rationalize their discontent by blaming the other persons who do not agree with them. And then saying, we are getting to get you as we know where you live. Heard that one before folks, haven’t you? Go and hug you Teddy bear and leave it to the adults that know better.

I’ve no doubt there are other possibilities such as simply manually adding the wordpress site address to the “Website” field before posting but IMO simply being logged in to your own wordpress site (and having the Name’s link automatically populated) is by far the most likely scenario.

Thomas Lee Elifritz says:
March 19, 2014 at 1:59 pm
“If you’ve got these kinds of problems that the OP indicates, then you need to own up to them.”

I’m not exactly sure what you want. Are you denying that there are people in the world desperate for food and clean water? Are you denying the corruption and greed that often overshadows that sort of poverty too? Do you think less co2 would magically cure that? Do you live in a bad scifi movie where the scientist saves the world? Food as fuel is just one of the enormously stupid and destructive ideas brought about by AGW. There are many more. Maybe you bought the whole economy is recovering, the new normal and there is no inflation propaganda too huh? Little hint: any numbers can be manipulated in a GIGO model.

Perhaps your need to feel significant makes you wish that mankind was back at the center of the universe and at fault for all its ills. You could just strap on your superman cape and save us poor fools right? Will you be calling for sacrifices to appease the climate in your AGW religion too? Oh wait, already done. I suspect however, the thought that we are powerless insignificant blips in this planets chaotic timeline is the thing that scares you most. Perhaps your ego cannot take the truth of your insignificant existence or the sting of being so wrong you are considered a joke .. either way, WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU!! You have no credibility, period.

and by all means, record my IP, your veiled intimidation only makes you look more pitiful because I seriously doubt you have the balls to confront anyone face to face because we would just laugh and dismiss you as the dupe you appear to be. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dupe

And this is new? Of course I’m not in the same league as many, but I can certainly see a re education camp in my future. To put that idea out there is about as damming argument to AGW as you can get. Don’t debate the science, just threaten. It is a double edge sword, it can cut both ways. What makes him think that there aren’t people of thinking of doing that to him if he’s proved wrong. And here’s the logic, if you are interested. Knowingly lying about this, falsifying the data, strong arming people and organizations and trying to end free debate in an open and free society for the purpose of a political agenda can be construed as treason.

rishrac, you make a very good point. He (Mann) and his colluding cohorts and supporters are feeling the cold and being frozen out of the realm of credibility bordering on fraud. His methodology with his bristlecone tree rings was way off the mark to use this tree that is an evergreen for starters and a slow grower for another reason. One tree does not make a forest. That is pure academic suicide should he be found an idiot and so will all his other alarmists who have published tripe too.
I mean to say, he and others of his type surely knew what they were doing and usually those that corrupt the data to fit their hypothesis, are usually criticized by academics who can prove them wrong. And there are many of them. His main objection to them is defamation? I mean to say why doesn’t he sue Anthony and all the posters on this site. Would he be then be fulfilled and self righteous? No – he can’t do it. Treason usually is concerned with putting one’s country in danger by selling confidential secrets etc., but I see your point.